02-09-2017, 06:43 AM
|
#701
|
Threadkiller
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 51.0544° N, 114.0669° W
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ricosuave For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-09-2017, 05:53 PM
|
#702
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: An Island in the Atlantic
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricosuave
|
My goal in life is to be this guy. Amazing, thank you for sharing!
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 05:49 AM
|
#703
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASP#26525
My goal in life is to be this guy. Amazing, thank you for sharing!
|
You want to be a hermit that lives in the Colorado mountains for 40 years?
It is neat that he kept records to show climate change though.
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 06:23 AM
|
#704
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricosuave
|
At what point does that constitute weather as opposed to climate, or vice-versa?
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 09:11 AM
|
#705
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
At what point does that constitute weather as opposed to climate, or vice-versa?
|
NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/n...e_weather.html
The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.
An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.
Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.
Data over 40 years would speak to climate.
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 09:25 AM
|
#706
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/n...e_weather.html
The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.
An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.
Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.
Data over 40 years would speak to climate.
|
Something seems weird about that then. I quite often watch the news in the evening and they always talk about record high and low temperatures for Calgary, at least in passing. So if the planet is getting significantly hotter, wouldn't we expect those records to be very recent? Instead, from a purely anecdotal perspective, these temperature records all seem to be from decades ago. And I know; the response is "that's weather you fool" and I'm fine with that. (Some times you have to dumb this down for a guy in finance!) But then this guy effectively tracks the weather for 40 years and it's climate. I just think there is a blurring of the lines here at some point.
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 09:34 AM
|
#707
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Something seems weird about that then. I quite often watch the news in the evening and they always talk about record high and low temperatures for Calgary, at least in passing. So if the planet is getting significantly hotter, wouldn't we expect those records to be very recent? Instead, from a purely anecdotal perspective, these temperature records all seem to be from decades ago. And I know; the response is "that's weather you fool" and I'm fine with that. (Some times you have to dumb this down for a guy in finance!) But then this guy effectively tracks the weather for 40 years and it's climate. I just think there is a blurring of the lines here at some point.
|
We are seeing more record high temperatures being set recently.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/s...cord.html?_r=0
Quote:
Since 1880, NOAA’s records show only one other instance when global temperature records were set three years in a row: in 1939, 1940 and 1941. The Earth has warmed so much in recent decades, however, that 1941 now ranks as only the 37th-warmest year on record.
Of the 17 hottest years on record, 16 have now occurred since 2000.
|
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...-break-records
Each of the first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The six-month period from January to June was also the planet's warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the late nineteenth century.
Last edited by troutman; 02-10-2017 at 09:42 AM.
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 11:33 AM
|
#709
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Something seems weird about that then. I quite often watch the news in the evening and they always talk about record high and low temperatures for Calgary, at least in passing. So if the planet is getting significantly hotter, wouldn't we expect those records to be very recent? Instead, from a purely anecdotal perspective, these temperature records all seem to be from decades ago.
|
At least in the US (and likely by proxy Canada), the 30s were probably the hottest decade on record:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...w-temperatures
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 11:57 AM
|
#710
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
|
Am I reading the data wrong? Figure 1 shows the "Heat Wave Index". I am not sure how that is calculated.
Figure 2 shows the hot daily highs and the hot daily lows. It looks like the 30s were hot, but it also appears that the general trend is upwards and that since the 70s its been getting progressively warmer.
Figure 6 is interesting. It shows the percentage of weather stations that had a record high in a decade. Again clear trend is upwards with the 2000s being the highest. Unfortunately, they don't show the same for the 1930s.
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 12:06 PM
|
#711
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Izzle
Am I reading the data wrong? Figure 1 shows the "Heat Wave Index". I am not sure how that is calculated.
Figure 2 shows the hot daily highs and the hot daily lows. It looks like the 30s were hot, but it also appears that the general trend is upwards and that since the 70s its been getting progressively warmer.
Figure 6 is interesting. It shows the percentage of weather stations that had a record high in a decade. Again clear trend is upwards with the 2000s being the highest. Unfortunately, they don't show the same for the 1930s.
|
Figure 1 is the Heat Wave Index: the percentage of areas that had prolonged stretches of very hot temperatures.
It makes zero claim regarding the 30s being the hottest overall. They werent (as far as I'm aware).
If you use a hockey metaphor:
Player A scores 2 points per game, for 4 game stretches, 7 times in a season, but for the rest of the time he scores 0 points per game.
Player A scores 2 points per game, for 4 game stretches, 2 times in a season, but for the rest of the time he scores 0.8 points per game.
According to figure 1, he'd look like a better producer (more hot streaks) but in actuality, he's a much better producer in the second season (more consistent results).
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 12:10 PM
|
#712
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Izzle
Am I reading the data wrong? Figure 1 shows the "Heat Wave Index". I am not sure how that is calculated.
Figure 2 shows the hot daily highs and the hot daily lows. It looks like the 30s were hot, but it also appears that the general trend is upwards and that since the 70s its been getting progressively warmer.
Figure 6 is interesting. It shows the percentage of weather stations that had a record high in a decade. Again clear trend is upwards with the 2000s being the highest. Unfortunately, they don't show the same for the 1930s.
|
That's how I read it; the 30s had by the most period of time or areas under a heat wave condition, and the 30s had numerous unusually daily highs that were only matched by the early part of this decade.
As for Figure 6, as you say it only starts from 1950 and doesn't account for the values of the 1930s.
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 01:55 PM
|
#713
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
|
If the climate were completely stable, one might expect to see highs and lows each accounting for about 50 percent of the records set. Since the 1970s, however, record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows across the United States (see Figure 6). The most recent decade had twice as many record highs as record lows.
|
|
|
02-10-2017, 04:40 PM
|
#714
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: An Island in the Atlantic
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
You want to be a hermit that lives in the Colorado mountains for 40 years?
It is neat that he kept records to show climate change though.
|
Yip, but in Newfoundland.
|
|
|
03-28-2017, 11:54 AM
|
#715
|
Franchise Player
|
So there is this one as well:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...ing-permafrost
I've seen a few articles like this. I mean, it sounds reasonable that a lot of this is locked up and could be released, but it doesn't sound like it is the big issue some scientists thought it was, at this point, anyway. Perhaps there is another mechanism at work here. I wonder if that Vice documentary provides this part of the story?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 05:28 PM
|
#716
|
God of Hating Twitter
|
So the short version, as I best have understood it is that research was done on what triggered natural warming and cooling cycles in the the distant past on earth. One of the areas of interest was that there was a tipping point where a slight warming period became a "hot period" where rapid changes in temperatures occurred (rapid in geological time.)
The 2 main culprits as we can best understand it is the frozen methane in the oceans which will release after further ocean warming (100-250yrs?), and the permafrost which contains a lot of carbon and of course patches of methane kept safely frozen underground in pockets of methane.
This article from last year covers a few of the key points:
Quote:
The data is important for climate change models, since the emissions released by thawing permafrost could significantly affect levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Old carbon isn't part of that equation if it remains trapped in frozen soil, but it's released as methane and carbon dioxide when permafrost soils thaw and decompose.
Walter Anthony said the billions of tons of carbon stored in permafrost are about twice the amount that is currently in the atmosphere. Many researchers are concerned that if old carbon begins to cycle it could create a feedback loop—its emissions contribute to warming, which again contributes to the thawing of more permafrost.
"If you open the freezer door, you thaw permafrost soil that's been frozen for a long time, and the organic matter in it is decomposed by microbes," Walter Anthony said.
Grosse, a co-author of the study from the German Alfred Wegener Institute, said climate change researchers are increasingly concerned about how fast that thaw and release of carbon may happen, and whether the process has already accelerated in recent years.
The new study found the rate of old carbon released during the past 60 years to be relatively small. Model projections conducted by other studies expect much higher carbon release rates—from 100 to 900 times greater—for its release during the upcoming 90 years. This suggests that current rates are still well below what may lay ahead in the future of a warmer Arctic.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-methan...frost.html#jCp
|
So the key note is a lot of the science is pretty settled with the data we have on current projects of warming in the next 50-100 years based on the data inputs we are pretty confident in at this point.
The one that can really kick the already lighting speed at which we are warming is of course how this all plays out with the permafrost and the methane release which I have read some scientists speak of with doomsday like fear if we start to see significant thawing of the permafrost.
The problem as we all know isn't that the earth hasn't had this type of PPM of C02 in the atmosphere that's predicted in the next 100 years, but at the rate at which the change is occurring, this is why we are seeing species dying out at rarely seen in earths history and is being dubbed a great extinction period by scientists today.
The fact we have so much frozen methane, which is about 19 times more harmful as a warming agent than c02, means we have to treat even small changes with great concern.
The runaway warming which is currently not in the climate models, but many think we should consider altering to show what this would look like IF we started to see significant release of c02 and methane in the next 50 years which many are fearing.
__________________
Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Last edited by Thor; 03-28-2017 at 05:31 PM.
|
|
|
05-10-2017, 09:53 AM
|
#717
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
|
Four big reasons why deniers started believing in climate change
https://qz.com/966586/four-big-reaso...sis-of-reddit/
But why did people reject climate change in the first place? Family was the most common reason. “Mostly because my family rigorously shot it down whenever it was remotely mentioned,” one person wrote. Another writer had grown up “actively and obnoxiously denying climate change because my dad told me it wasn’t real.”
But personal politics and identity were a close second (and are cited as top reasons in other studies). Climate change is starkly political in the US. Although 68% of registered Democrats rate climate change as a “very serious problem,” reports the Pew Research Center, only 20% of Republicans agree (the global median is 58%) . “I had kinda developed the idea that liberals were the ‘bad guys,’” said one poster justifying his rejection of the science. Another added: “… raised Republican. Naturally, I believed climate change is leftist bull####.”
The third major reason was a desire to avoid the enormity of the problem. “I really doubted it for a while, because honestly it scared me,” one poster wrote. “I figured if I just denied it and pretended it wasn’t a thing, it wouldn’t be and it would just go away.”
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-10-2017, 11:02 AM
|
#718
|
Franchise Player
|
Let's not pretend this is only an ideological issue for the right. Some of the most vigorous activists marching under the climate change banner are passionate anti-capitalist ideologues, who see this as a way to get the world to come to its senses and embrace an anti-industrial, anti-capitalist, anti-trade agenda.
When the Naomi Kleins of this world get on a bandwagon, it's perfectly legitimate to be skeptical of their biases. Many of the people who rate climate change as an important political issue are no better versed in the science than climate change deniers are. They're simply hewing to partisan beliefs of their tribe, just as the deniers are.
The science is real. But many on the left are only too happy to exploit the science and weaponize it for political ends. And in their zeal, they'll shamelessly torque the narrative, vilify opponents, reject any nuance, and promote a crisis mentality - just as zealots of all political stripes do.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-10-2017, 11:14 AM
|
#719
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
When the Naomi Kleins of this world get on a bandwagon, it's perfectly legitimate to be skeptical of their biases. Many of the people who rate climate change as an important political issue are no better versed in the science than climate change deniers are. They're simply hewing to partisan beliefs of their tribe, just as the deniers are.
|
This is silly. It's ridiculous to expect average people to be well-versed in the science. I have only a very basic understanding of the science behind climate change. What I do have is a pragmatic deference to those who do understand the science.
Quote:
The science is real. But many on the left are only too happy to exploit the science and weaponize it for political ends. And in their zeal, they'll shamelessly torque the narrative, vilify opponents, reject any nuance, and promote a crisis mentality - just as zealots of all political stripes do.
|
You're treading to close to a very damaging false equivalence. Do you honestly not see why the right's tactics of discrediting and undermining the science and scientists associated with climate change is much more harmful than the left discrediting the scientifically illiterate and those exhibiting textbook cases of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
The ways in which the modern conservative movement has managed to convince large segments of the population that uninformed, gut instinct is just as valid or superior to them there fancy-pants book-learners is both sad and bizarrely fascinating.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-10-2017, 11:28 AM
|
#720
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
This is silly. It's ridiculous to expect average people to be well-versed in the science. I have only a very basic understanding of the science behind climate change. What I do have is a pragmatic deference to those who do understand the science.
|
A deference which, on the part of the left in general (though I can't say if that's true of you), is highly selective. The left certainly doesn't demonstrate a pragmatic deference to those who understand science when it comes to GMO foods, for example.
Climate science is a highly politicized and ideological issue on both sides of the political spectrum. As with every issue these days, most people believe what everyone else in their social tribe believes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:19 PM.
|
|